High hopes of cutting skyscrapers to size

Your article (UN threatens to act against Britain for failure to protect heritage sites, September 8) sums up the battle Westminster council has been leading against an almost fetishistic obsession with skyscrapers. We are relieved that Boris Johnson agrees with our stance that the protection of our Unesco world heritage site, the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's Church, is more important than creating monstrously tall towers which will destroy our historic skyline. We are not against skyscrapers, providing they are in the right place and do not damage important views.

The notion that skyscrapers are an essential expression of the city's economic progress is outdated. We should call a halt to these stale cliches and balance creative initiatives with the preservation of historic buildings and environmental sustainability. It is disappointing that the government has so far failed to grasp this and only last month gave the go-ahead to the 143-metre-tall Doon Street tower, overruling its own senior planning inspector. This is nothing short of architectural vandalism and we are examining the possibility of mounting a judicial review to challenge this.Cllr Robert DavisDeputy leader, Westminster council

Unesco's concerns for seven world heritage sites are reason to remember Sir John Lubbock, 1st Baron Avebury. Among the 30 bills he introduced as a backbencher was the Ancient Monuments Act of 1882, which protected a heritage that, at the time, was unvalued - "stone circle after stone circle, megalithic tombs and ancient earth works, blasted, quarried, [and] carted away". He bought the site of the Avebury stone circle to save it from developers, and gave the monument to the nation, and intervened to save Stonehenge from a new railway line. (He also introduced the August bank holiday so people might enjoy the wonder of such a heritage.)David WembridgeBracknell, Berkshire